Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Which 4895?

Hi:

Several threads on reduced loads recently caused me to go look at an article from the Jul/Aug 1973 Handloader magazine - "Stairsted Loading the Magnums" by John Wootters. Anyway, in the section on the 300 WM, he gives a charge and then specifies only "4895." So is this H-4895 or IMR-4895?

Thanks,

Paul

I dunno. John is dead, its gonna be tough to ask him�



Check his loads against those listed in the Hodgdon site�it may shed some light.

I think it's Hodgdon that has the 4895 reduced load data. You may want to check that on line. 4198, 3031 and other similar powders will work fine, seem the data is with 4895.

DF

DF:

He actually does give some data for 3031 and 4064 as well which tends to make me think he was referring to IMR-4895, but would hate to be wrong although I'm not sure the charges are large enough to get into trouble.

Paul

Charges that are too small can be as dangerous as ones that are too large, particularly in the larger cases.

When in doubt, do not guess, there may not be a second chance for a do over.

In Handloader #203 is an article by Ken Waters on "Loading Big Game Bullets for Deer". There is a .300 Winchester Magnum load(also for the Norma)using the 150gr Nosler boat-tail(?)w/54gr of IMR4895 for 2626fps.

I have a major preference for IMR's 4895, over Hodgdon's...

at the same time, using load data for a number of reloading sources...I don't think you are going to see that much difference, to where it really matters, which ever one of the two you pick...

IMRs old Brown Sheet had load data using each one of their rifle powders...Lyman's Old # 47 Manual also lists many of those powders in that burn rate, to include the 300 Magnums...

so that stuff is out there and fairly easy to find...

IMR's Brown Sheet, lists 64 grains of IMR 4895 for an MV of 3240 fps...for a 150 grain bullet

for a 180 they list 59.5 grains of IMR 4895 for an MV of 2950 fps

for a 220 grain bullet, they list a max charge at 53.5 grains, for an MV of 2555 fps...

If ya use H 4895 instead, just start a little lower and work up just to be safe.. but the results should be awfully close.. and these are max loads... so less powder, less recoil, etc...

PBR,

Even if the powder Wootters used was H4895, it wasn't the H4895 of today. Plus, it doesn't matter an awful lot whether you use H4895 or IMR4895 for reduced loads. Hodgdon advises H4895 because the results are often (but not always) more satisfactory than with IMR4895, but the formula they list on their website is safe with either powder.

Most of IMR's single base powder data can get pretty low as far as reduction/pressure (I'd note that fuels listed from 4350/4831 needs to occupy the case volume when its pressure efficiencies are reduced to less than half of optimum).

Thank you all for the info - I feel better knowing that the reduced formula is safe as well with the IMR powder. Now, off to see if I can get the 30-06 and 30-30 duplication loads close.

Paul

Typically, I've found that when the "Old Timers" made reference to 4895 they were thinking IMR, not H.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

Here is a link to Hodgdon's low recoil load data.

http://www.imrpowder.com/PDF/Youth%20Loads.pdf

DF

Thanks DF,

I've seen that before, but what attracted me to the loads (or at least the concept) in the article was not that they were necessarily low-recoil loads, just lower "power" loads. I sure don't need full-house 200 grain loads for hunting whitetails in the Black Hills and even less appropriate would be the 3,000+ fps lower grain loads.

The idea that I could load a 180 grain bullet to say 2,700 fps or a 150-165 grain to around 2,500 fps just seems really useful for reasons not related to recoil reduction.

I'm sure this is all quite possible, but all of the reduced loads I see concentrate on the recoil reduction aspect and seem to focus on even lighter bullets (125 or so.)

Granted, the obvious answer is to shoot a 30-06 or 30-30 when appropriate. Great, except I have neither of those and a bunch of the folks I hunt with are like that - we have 1 big game rifle sized to the biggest game or most challenging conditions we face and then try to adjust down or else end up shooting a 150 lb whitetail at 50 yards with a 150 grain bullet going way too fast and blow a bunch of meat to magpie bait.

Paul

Without getting down into Youth-Load levels, you can do a lot just by taking either '4895 and knocking off 10% from the MAX.

I use 165 grainers. My buddy, Supercore uses 180 grainers.

The result is a fairly easy shooting round that is accurate.

As to tearing up meat, it will all depend on where you shoot it. With a 300 WM at 50 yards, I'd stay away from the shoulder blade and try to go in and out through the ribs.

H4895 has produced better accuracy in the different rifles that I tried.

Same here. I switched to H4895 about a decade ago and didn't look back. I didn't mention it, because my flirtation with IMR4895 was brief.

Hodgdon specifically suggests H4895 for reduced loads rather than IMR4895 because they say the results are normally more consistent than IMR4895.

However, I�ve seen too many exceptions to that, probably partly because for years IMR4895 was far more available in most places I lived here in Montana. Also, the present version of H4895 didn�t appear until sometime in the 1990�s, when Hodgdon started importing the Australian version.

In fact, in the years before H4895 became available I used IMR4895 for a bunch of more-or-less reduced loads in several cartridges and can�t remember one where accuracy wasn�t sub-inch at 100 yards. Off the top of my head, there was a turkey load with the 75-grain Speer flat-point at 25-20 velocities in the .257 Roberts Ackley Improved, a varmint load with the 90-grain Sierra HP in the .270 Winchester (1/2� accuracy), and a moderate-range and recoil deer load for the .338 Winchester Magnum, using the 200-grain Speer Hot-Cor at 2650 fps.

More recently I spent considerable time for an article on creating �rimfire equivalent� handloads in various .22 caliber centerfires. One of the two most consistent loads, in both accuracy and minimal velocity spreads, was 16.0 grains of IMR4895 with the Speer 40-grain for about 1600 fps in the .223 Remington�and yes, I tried it with H4895 as well.

The major difference I�ve seen between the two powders is H4895 being more temperature resistant (one of the reasons for its overall consistent results), but IMR4895 isn�t bad there either. In fact if somebody doesn�t insist on using it in loads outside its normal �comfort zone� it can rival the Hodgdon Extremes in that respect.

I've had no trouble with either H or IMR in cartridges where the 4895 burn rate is appropriate. The 250 and 300 Savages, and the 308 Winchester are my main uses for them.

Lately I've been burning a lot of the IMR version since I was able to get a couple of 8 pound jugs at what passes for a good price these days. Using thrown charges of it with 168 and 175 grain bullets from Sierra, Nosler, Hornady and Berger I'm regularly getting .5 to .6 MOA five shot groups out of several of my 308's. So accuracy, or should I say precision, is no problem.

I've been seeing more IMR4895 available lately, and since I'm on the bottom half of my last 8-pounder should probably pick some up!

In the same burn rate area, didn't you say somewhere that new production AA2495 is a good one as well?